randys1 (1,067 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025019521
Time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment -----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.â€
I probably will never get my way, which is to eliminate all hand guns and most rifles, but this works too...
How about we also add:
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied persons at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.I would also make sure everyone had to do two years service and training right out of High School, AND the Government furnished them a weapon...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (1,074 posts)
1. With the caveat, of course
that anyone serving in the Militia is eligible to be called up for military service overseas.
I agree
The_Commonist (2,209 posts)
4. Exactly!
The gun-humpers always manage to forget about the well-regulated militia part.
Unfortunately, it's poorly worded.
As I'm posting on many of these gun threads...
"When did a 'well-regulated militia' become an unregulated, well armed populace?"
The problem with leftists is once you explain to them what something means, i.e. well regulated militia, you have to explain it to them every single time thereafter.
immoderate (17,196 posts)
35. You misread the context of "regulated."
To assume it means "restricted" here, relegates the amendment to nonsense. Alternative interpretations imply a sense of qualification or adjustment. It also helps make sense out of Hamilton's references to the militia in Fed. 29.
--imm
Frank's other mole...
NightWatcher (24,089 posts)
8. It's time to remind them about the first four words
We have a REGULATED militia, aren't they called the State National Guards?
If you want to work in the State Guards, the feds will not take weapons from the State Guards. THAT is what is guaranteed in the 2nd. The Feds will not prevent the State Guards from possessing weapons as long as they are well regulated.
um... no.
former9thward (10,105 posts)
21. No. The National Guard did not even exist until the late 1800s.
Almost 100 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified. So, No, the founders did not have them in mind. People who want to ban guns try to ignore history because it never helps them.
Cannikin (8,344 posts)
9. Guns & same sex marriage
I was recently "gay" married in Arkansas, along with 500 other couples, and have spent every day since fighting with a state senator who is working hard to nullify it. The US Constitution has been my greatest weapon against his religious and legal arguments. I am very much pro-gun control but I feel very conflicted on the issue of making changes simply because I'm afraid that would be opening the door for that to be used against me later.
Any thoughts on that?
Yup.
randys1 (1,067 posts)
23. Doesnt matter, the point is you can own 400 or 4000 guns and 200,000 rounds of ammo
if you want to...
you can own guns that no citizen should own, I am not an expert on which ones those are but you probably are...
Fact: an evolved, mature, responsible society will not be a gun crazy society, it will be the opposite, common sense...which type of society do you want to live in...
Big Ghey Randy goes running around shouting at the top of his ... her?... lungs!
LittleBlue (5,827 posts)
25. Our congress can't even pass a budget
Talking about changing the constitution is like planning for a trip to the Andromeda Galaxy when we have barely made it to Mars.
rock (8,038 posts)
32. Your rewrite, as written, is pointless and/or confusing
It's NOT the same as not having a 2nd amendment, as it says too much. You would clearly wind up in the brig if you joined one the armed forces then insisted on carrying a weapon everywhere you went. If you don't want the 2nd amendment then you should say so. Don't try to futz up the one we've got; you may get unexpected consequences. I did enjoy your attempt at an innovative solution though.
randys1 (1,067 posts)
33. I didnt write the article, i merely linked to it
But anything is better than what we have which is unlimited guns in the hands of mostly immature men playing with toys
mostly, not all but mostly
where is the whiny little bitch smiley?
X_Digger (15,422 posts)
42. You say this as if you think the bill of rights grants or conveys a right. (It doesn't.)
This is a fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have made.
The bill of rights creates no rights, conveys no rights. It protects pre-existing rights.
Heck, repealing the second amendment wouldn't change much- the right would go from being an enumerated right explicitly protected by the second, to an unenumerated right, protected by the ninth, plus almost all state constitutions.
That, sir, will leave a ****ing mark!
randys1 (1,067 posts) 
44. I said what now?
randys1 (1,068 posts)
48. I give up , as I did the other day on bible thumpers
buy all the guns you want, shoot all the stuff you want, I will just learn to duck better than I already can
(though the ones who were just slaughtered were younger and in much better shape than I am and ducking didnt help them)
but I will work on it
I really mean it, I give up, if this many so called progressive adults still think this way, then it is a lost cause...at least in my lifetime
